Burgled cancer victim refused £31k insurance pay out

Robert and Louisa Cade from Marlow and their three young children. Photo courtesy of Daily Mail

Robert and Louisa Cade from Marlow and their three young children. Photo courtesy of Daily Mail

First published in Health by

A BURGLARY victim, undergoing chemotherapy for an inoperable brain tumour, has been left unable to seek alternative treatment to combat the disease after insurers refused to pay out for his £31,000 claim.

About £27,000 worth of watches, heirlooms and electronic gadgets were stolen in November from the Cade's family home in Marlow, with another £4k of damage caused.

Airline pilot Robert Cade, 50, was enduring a battle with cancer when he got a letter saying his insurance policy did not cover the claim.

Their contents insurance was for a total of £50,000 but smallprint said the valuables in the home must be no more than a third of this - £16,667.

His wife Louisa said: "This is just an added stress to our already really stressful situation. It's made it even worse. The money in comparison to what we're facing is insignificant although it could have paid for us to seek alternative treatment.

"There's a place we wanted to go to which is a healing centre, which we're unable to do now. That money to the insurance company doesn't mean anything to them."

Mr Cade said: "When they told me they were ripping up our policy, I thought it was a joke. I could not believe they would simply cancel it, leave us without cover and refuse to pay any of our claim.

"The sense of a stranger going through your personal things is sickening. It feels as though the memories of much-missed family members have been trampled on."

The burglary happened in particularly distressing circumstances. The family left home for under two hours to take their daughter, Holly, to hospital, after she had breathing problems. The tally of items snatched included a German officer’s sword - a souvenir from Mr Cade’s late father’s wartime service.

The father-of-three told the MFP: "I feel let down. It was a shock but because of what we're going through it sort of softened the blow, at the end of the day it's only money whereas the cancer is life changing."

The Cades bought the £280-a-year policy through comparison website MoneySupermarket in July. They chose a company called Home Quote Direct, an online broker. After filling in the paperwork they were eventually passed to a company called Paragon Insurance.

A letter from loss adjuster Knowles on behalf of the insurer said: "Certain facts have emerged which have caused underwriters to void your policy of insurance on the grounds of material non-disclosure and misrepresentations made by you. The result of this voidance is that the policy does not and has not existed, and therefore no claims are payable under it."

A cheque was sent to refund their premiums. Paragon Insurance said in a statement: "The Cades have made a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman; while this is happening we won’t comment further."

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:42pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Voyeur says...

If they had been over insured would the insurance company paid out more than was stolen? No, I didn't think so.
If they had been over insured would the insurance company paid out more than was stolen? No, I didn't think so. Voyeur
  • Score: 2

11:59pm Mon 18 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

What was the name of the insurance company?
What was the name of the insurance company? ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 1

7:50am Tue 19 Feb 13

choclabrador says...

Today is the day to check your insurance policy if you think you are insured with PARAGON Dont wait until it is to late
Today is the day to check your insurance policy if you think you are insured with PARAGON Dont wait until it is to late choclabrador
  • Score: 4

8:27am Tue 19 Feb 13

PDplum says...

I fail to understand the complaint. They were not attentive enough to read through the policy paperwork and vastly misrepresented the valuables in their property.
Had they declared correct information upon application their premium would have been higher to represent the increased risk.

What an utter non-story
I fail to understand the complaint. They were not attentive enough to read through the policy paperwork and vastly misrepresented the valuables in their property. Had they declared correct information upon application their premium would have been higher to represent the increased risk. What an utter non-story PDplum
  • Score: 2

9:33am Tue 19 Feb 13

wycombe_boy says...

So, the cancer side of this story is rather irrelevant.

Poor journalism (again) by the BFP.
So, the cancer side of this story is rather irrelevant. Poor journalism (again) by the BFP. wycombe_boy
  • Score: -1

10:20am Tue 19 Feb 13

Hedgehunter says...

Yet another example of the dangers of buying insurance on the cheap through comparison web sites: too much reliance on assumptions and ignorance of small print. An insurance broker would take the time to establish what was to be insured and ensure the right level of cover was in place.
Yet another example of the dangers of buying insurance on the cheap through comparison web sites: too much reliance on assumptions and ignorance of small print. An insurance broker would take the time to establish what was to be insured and ensure the right level of cover was in place. Hedgehunter
  • Score: 4

10:23am Tue 19 Feb 13

sparky49 says...

I think the point in this story is not the amount of valuables stolen, but the fact that the insurance company are refusing to pay up to the insured amount. Another example of insurers looking for any reason not to pay out. It is a complete minefield, most of us would need to be a broker to ensure we were properly covered.
I think the point in this story is not the amount of valuables stolen, but the fact that the insurance company are refusing to pay up to the insured amount. Another example of insurers looking for any reason not to pay out. It is a complete minefield, most of us would need to be a broker to ensure we were properly covered. sparky49
  • Score: 1

10:25am Tue 19 Feb 13

HW1 says...

Insurance Companies prefer to find ways of not paying you rather than paying. The question is should the question of value be left in small print. I think not. Surely the better way round is to have to select the amount you want to insure and that is the maximum amount you will get in the event of any loss. In the above case the small print apparently stated that a declaration should be made if the value exceeded £16,667. Why therefore have the insurance company offered that amount. As I said ii the beginning Insurance Companies don't want to pay and will find any excuse not to do so!
Insurance Companies prefer to find ways of not paying you rather than paying. The question is should the question of value be left in small print. I think not. Surely the better way round is to have to select the amount you want to insure and that is the maximum amount you will get in the event of any loss. In the above case the small print apparently stated that a declaration should be made if the value exceeded £16,667. Why therefore have the insurance company offered that amount. As I said ii the beginning Insurance Companies don't want to pay and will find any excuse not to do so! HW1
  • Score: 3

10:27am Tue 19 Feb 13

HW1 says...

HW1 wrote:
Insurance Companies prefer to find ways of not paying you rather than paying. The question is should the question of value be left in small print. I think not. Surely the better way round is to have to select the amount you want to insure and that is the maximum amount you will get in the event of any loss. In the above case the small print apparently stated that a declaration should be made if the value exceeded £16,667. Why therefore have the insurance company offered that amount. As I said ii the beginning Insurance Companies don't want to pay and will find any excuse not to do so!
My last but one sentence should have read 'Why therefore have the Insurance Company NOT offered that amount?'
[quote][p][bold]HW1[/bold] wrote: Insurance Companies prefer to find ways of not paying you rather than paying. The question is should the question of value be left in small print. I think not. Surely the better way round is to have to select the amount you want to insure and that is the maximum amount you will get in the event of any loss. In the above case the small print apparently stated that a declaration should be made if the value exceeded £16,667. Why therefore have the insurance company offered that amount. As I said ii the beginning Insurance Companies don't want to pay and will find any excuse not to do so![/p][/quote]My last but one sentence should have read 'Why therefore have the Insurance Company NOT offered that amount?' HW1
  • Score: 0

10:48am Tue 19 Feb 13

Hedgehunter says...

The insurance company have not offered to pay £16,667 because the policy is void. The policy is void because the policyholder declared that the total amount of valuables was under this figure. The premium charged and accepted was £280 on this basis. Had the policy declared the correct amount, the premium would have been higher.

Buying insurance online can get you very cheap premiums but it is your responsibility to ensure you have the correct level of cover. You don't need to be a broker to be sure you are properly covered, you just need to use the services of one.
The insurance company have not offered to pay £16,667 because the policy is void. The policy is void because the policyholder declared that the total amount of valuables was under this figure. The premium charged and accepted was £280 on this basis. Had the policy declared the correct amount, the premium would have been higher. Buying insurance online can get you very cheap premiums but it is your responsibility to ensure you have the correct level of cover. You don't need to be a broker to be sure you are properly covered, you just need to use the services of one. Hedgehunter
  • Score: 1

11:45am Tue 19 Feb 13

Bill Taxpayer says...

Well thanks for the tip.

The should have at least paid out the maximum insured (i.e. the 16,667).

Home Quote Direct & Paragon Insurance - two companies to make sure I never use.
Well thanks for the tip. The should have at least paid out the maximum insured (i.e. the 16,667). Home Quote Direct & Paragon Insurance - two companies to make sure I never use. Bill Taxpayer
  • Score: 3

12:14pm Tue 19 Feb 13

PDplum says...

No they shouldnt the policy was voided due to fraudulent misrepresentation!
No they shouldnt the policy was voided due to fraudulent misrepresentation! PDplum
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Hedgehunter says...

Bill Taxpayer wrote:
Well thanks for the tip.

The should have at least paid out the maximum insured (i.e. the 16,667).

Home Quote Direct & Paragon Insurance - two companies to make sure I never use.
£16,667 was not the maximum insured value. It was a prerequisite of the policy that total valuables should not exceed this figure, which they did.

Paragon were only obligated to pay (up to) £16,667 if the total sums insured of valuables did not exceed this figure.

I don't believe for one minute that the family deliberately misrepresented this information, instead the "quick and easy" process of buying online made it easy to unintentionally underinsure.
[quote][p][bold]Bill Taxpayer[/bold] wrote: Well thanks for the tip. The should have at least paid out the maximum insured (i.e. the 16,667). Home Quote Direct & Paragon Insurance - two companies to make sure I never use.[/p][/quote]£16,667 was not the maximum insured value. It was a prerequisite of the policy that total valuables should not exceed this figure, which they did. Paragon were only obligated to pay (up to) £16,667 if the total sums insured of valuables did not exceed this figure. I don't believe for one minute that the family deliberately misrepresented this information, instead the "quick and easy" process of buying online made it easy to unintentionally underinsure. Hedgehunter
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Edgar Brooks says...

PDplum wrote:
No they shouldnt the policy was voided due to fraudulent misrepresentation!
Absolute twaddle, since fraud is an intention to deceive, which, to anyone who isn't a smart-alec knowall, is patently not the case. The family simply made a mistake, and, as so often with gambling (sorry, insurance) companies, they seize on the slightest reason not to pay out.
[quote][p][bold]PDplum[/bold] wrote: No they shouldnt the policy was voided due to fraudulent misrepresentation![/p][/quote]Absolute twaddle, since fraud is an intention to deceive, which, to anyone who isn't a smart-alec knowall, is patently not the case. The family simply made a mistake, and, as so often with gambling (sorry, insurance) companies, they seize on the slightest reason not to pay out. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 4

1:29pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Bill Taxpayer says...

PDplum wrote:
No they shouldnt the policy was voided due to fraudulent misrepresentation!
What a load of cobblers!

The rather weak condition which the insurance company are falling back on was hidden in the smallprint.

If we are talking about 'fraudulent misrepresentation', as you put it, one might ask why such an important point was in the SMALL print!

They took Mr Cade's money when he paid it in good faith, now they should pay out.
[quote][p][bold]PDplum[/bold] wrote: No they shouldnt the policy was voided due to fraudulent misrepresentation![/p][/quote]What a load of cobblers! The rather weak condition which the insurance company are falling back on was hidden in the smallprint. If we are talking about 'fraudulent misrepresentation', as you put it, one might ask why such an important point was in the SMALL print! They took Mr Cade's money when he paid it in good faith, now they should pay out. Bill Taxpayer
  • Score: 3

1:48pm Tue 19 Feb 13

readerabc says...

non-story
non-story readerabc
  • Score: -1

2:23pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Hedgehunter says...

Yes, they paid money in good faith, but this does not obligate the insurer to pay out.

Don't forget they never dealt directly with Paragon, they used a Third Party web site which passed data on to an online broker, which passed the data on to the insurer.

It is possible that the application process was vague, causing the family to believe they were receiving a quote based on their individual circumstances when instead it was an illustrative quote based on standard criteria.
Yes, they paid money in good faith, but this does not obligate the insurer to pay out. Don't forget they never dealt directly with Paragon, they used a Third Party web site which passed data on to an online broker, which passed the data on to the insurer. It is possible that the application process was vague, causing the family to believe they were receiving a quote based on their individual circumstances when instead it was an illustrative quote based on standard criteria. Hedgehunter
  • Score: 0

10:50pm Tue 19 Feb 13

HW1 says...

Hedgehunter wrote:
Bill Taxpayer wrote:
Well thanks for the tip.

The should have at least paid out the maximum insured (i.e. the 16,667).

Home Quote Direct & Paragon Insurance - two companies to make sure I never use.
£16,667 was not the maximum insured value. It was a prerequisite of the policy that total valuables should not exceed this figure, which they did.

Paragon were only obligated to pay (up to) £16,667 if the total sums insured of valuables did not exceed this figure.

I don't believe for one minute that the family deliberately misrepresented this information, instead the "quick and easy" process of buying online made it easy to unintentionally underinsure.
What absolute twaddle you write Hedgehunter. The fact remains the family under estimated the value of their goods. They did however pay for cover of £16,667 so that is the amount the Insurance Company should have offered to pay. I hope they end up paying more after the Insurance Ombudsman deals with this case given the devastating effect it is having on this family due to health problems. As I said previously Insurance companies are notorious in not wanting to pay out and as Edgar Brooks said they will seize on the slightest thing to get out of paying. The attitude of this Insurance Company absolutely stinks!
[quote][p][bold]Hedgehunter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill Taxpayer[/bold] wrote: Well thanks for the tip. The should have at least paid out the maximum insured (i.e. the 16,667). Home Quote Direct & Paragon Insurance - two companies to make sure I never use.[/p][/quote]£16,667 was not the maximum insured value. It was a prerequisite of the policy that total valuables should not exceed this figure, which they did. Paragon were only obligated to pay (up to) £16,667 if the total sums insured of valuables did not exceed this figure. I don't believe for one minute that the family deliberately misrepresented this information, instead the "quick and easy" process of buying online made it easy to unintentionally underinsure.[/p][/quote]What absolute twaddle you write Hedgehunter. The fact remains the family under estimated the value of their goods. They did however pay for cover of £16,667 so that is the amount the Insurance Company should have offered to pay. I hope they end up paying more after the Insurance Ombudsman deals with this case given the devastating effect it is having on this family due to health problems. As I said previously Insurance companies are notorious in not wanting to pay out and as Edgar Brooks said they will seize on the slightest thing to get out of paying. The attitude of this Insurance Company absolutely stinks! HW1
  • Score: 1

3:03pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Urban Tiger says...

HW1, it's you that is talking twaddle. Hedgehunter is of course quite right.

This guy has paid far less into the pot than he should have done, at the expense of honest/more careful people who get their sums insured right and pay the correct premium. If he gets paid out his £16K+, where's the incentive to tell the truth.

Plus, has it occured to you that his chance of being burgled in the first place is much higher as he clearly has more than he told his insurers. If £27K of valuables were taken (and no doubt he has other valuables that weren't taken) then his total sum insured must be way over the £50K he disclosed. If the insurance company had known the truth, they may not have covered him at all!!

He took out insurance online because it was cheap, he ticked boxes without checking, so he is the author of his own misfortune. With so many valuables at stake, he should have bought a proper policy with a well known insurer thru a proper broker.

Obviously the cancer aspect is sad, but completely irrelevant to the facts of the case. But I suppose "thieving insurers fleece cancer victim" will sell more papers than "cheapskate cuts corners on insurance and pays the price."
HW1, it's you that is talking twaddle. Hedgehunter is of course quite right. This guy has paid far less into the pot than he should have done, at the expense of honest/more careful people who get their sums insured right and pay the correct premium. If he gets paid out his £16K+, where's the incentive to tell the truth. Plus, has it occured to you that his chance of being burgled in the first place is much higher as he clearly has more than he told his insurers. If £27K of valuables were taken (and no doubt he has other valuables that weren't taken) then his total sum insured must be way over the £50K he disclosed. If the insurance company had known the truth, they may not have covered him at all!! He took out insurance online because it was cheap, he ticked boxes without checking, so he is the author of his own misfortune. With so many valuables at stake, he should have bought a proper policy with a well known insurer thru a proper broker. Obviously the cancer aspect is sad, but completely irrelevant to the facts of the case. But I suppose "thieving insurers fleece cancer victim" will sell more papers than "cheapskate cuts corners on insurance and pays the price." Urban Tiger
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Urban Tiger says...

And while I'm at it, the actual story refers to "small print". I challenge the BFP to print a picture of said "small print".
I bet there isn't any.

When people say "small print", what they actually mean is normal sized print that they were too **** lazy to read.
And while I'm at it, the actual story refers to "small print". I challenge the BFP to print a picture of said "small print". I bet there isn't any. When people say "small print", what they actually mean is normal sized print that they were too **** lazy to read. Urban Tiger
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Wed 20 Feb 13

flacker says...

And there we come to the crux of the issue with this story - and all similar stories involving financial institutions these days: there's no longer a MORAL aspect to any of the dealings with their customers.

It used to be that businesses; banks especially; were built on a basis of trust and moral obligation. I'm not talking recently of course, but the original founding beliefs and constructs of the early years of these companies. Now it's all about bottom lines, shareholders, bonus structures and retirement plans for the exec team - and screw Joe Public who often has little choice but to trust these people with their worldly assets and/or the protection thereof.

If this company had any moral regard whatsoever they'd pay the minimum (or 60% of it, which I believe is widely agreed as acceptable in these cases). It's even more galling that companies operate this way given the legal requirement to hold certain types of insurance.
And there we come to the crux of the issue with this story - and all similar stories involving financial institutions these days: there's no longer a MORAL aspect to any of the dealings with their customers. It used to be that businesses; banks especially; were built on a basis of trust and moral obligation. I'm not talking recently of course, but the original founding beliefs and constructs of the early years of these companies. Now it's all about bottom lines, shareholders, bonus structures and retirement plans for the exec team - and screw Joe Public who often has little choice but to trust these people with their worldly assets and/or the protection thereof. If this company had any moral regard whatsoever they'd pay the minimum (or 60% of it, which I believe is widely agreed as acceptable in these cases). It's even more galling that companies operate this way given the legal requirement to hold certain types of insurance. flacker
  • Score: 0

7:50am Thu 21 Feb 13

HW1 says...

Urban Tiger wrote:
HW1, it's you that is talking twaddle. Hedgehunter is of course quite right.

This guy has paid far less into the pot than he should have done, at the expense of honest/more careful people who get their sums insured right and pay the correct premium. If he gets paid out his £16K+, where's the incentive to tell the truth.

Plus, has it occured to you that his chance of being burgled in the first place is much higher as he clearly has more than he told his insurers. If £27K of valuables were taken (and no doubt he has other valuables that weren't taken) then his total sum insured must be way over the £50K he disclosed. If the insurance company had known the truth, they may not have covered him at all!!

He took out insurance online because it was cheap, he ticked boxes without checking, so he is the author of his own misfortune. With so many valuables at stake, he should have bought a proper policy with a well known insurer thru a proper broker.

Obviously the cancer aspect is sad, but completely irrelevant to the facts of the case. But I suppose "thieving insurers fleece cancer victim" will sell more papers than "cheapskate cuts corners on insurance and pays the price."
Now it's you that's talking twaddle Urban Tiger. This family paid for the minimum of cover i.e. £16,667. The fact they under-estimated is of no relevance, the Insurance Company should still pay out the amount of cover that was paid for not dodge the issue which appears to be common practice.. I hope the Insurance Company involved (Home Quote Direct & Paragon Insurance) get their just deserts from all this publicity because they deserve it. I hope we will get to hear what the Insurance Ombudsman has to say about this.
[quote][p][bold]Urban Tiger[/bold] wrote: HW1, it's you that is talking twaddle. Hedgehunter is of course quite right. This guy has paid far less into the pot than he should have done, at the expense of honest/more careful people who get their sums insured right and pay the correct premium. If he gets paid out his £16K+, where's the incentive to tell the truth. Plus, has it occured to you that his chance of being burgled in the first place is much higher as he clearly has more than he told his insurers. If £27K of valuables were taken (and no doubt he has other valuables that weren't taken) then his total sum insured must be way over the £50K he disclosed. If the insurance company had known the truth, they may not have covered him at all!! He took out insurance online because it was cheap, he ticked boxes without checking, so he is the author of his own misfortune. With so many valuables at stake, he should have bought a proper policy with a well known insurer thru a proper broker. Obviously the cancer aspect is sad, but completely irrelevant to the facts of the case. But I suppose "thieving insurers fleece cancer victim" will sell more papers than "cheapskate cuts corners on insurance and pays the price."[/p][/quote]Now it's you that's talking twaddle Urban Tiger. This family paid for the minimum of cover i.e. £16,667. The fact they under-estimated is of no relevance, the Insurance Company should still pay out the amount of cover that was paid for not dodge the issue which appears to be common practice.. I hope the Insurance Company involved (Home Quote Direct & Paragon Insurance) get their just deserts from all this publicity because they deserve it. I hope we will get to hear what the Insurance Ombudsman has to say about this. HW1
  • Score: 0

8:53am Thu 21 Feb 13

aaaali says...

"Certain facts have emerged which have caused underwriters to void your policy of insurance on the grounds of material non-disclosure and misrepresentations made by you. The result of this voidance is that the policy does not and has not existed, and therefore no claims are payable under it." Would suggest there is more to the story. Insurance companies aren't always the bad guys, Remember any misrepresentation however small or 'innocent' is technically an attempt to commit fraud. No matter how you try to dress it up!!
"Certain facts have emerged which have caused underwriters to void your policy of insurance on the grounds of material non-disclosure and misrepresentations made by you. The result of this voidance is that the policy does not and has not existed, and therefore no claims are payable under it." Would suggest there is more to the story. Insurance companies aren't always the bad guys, Remember any misrepresentation however small or 'innocent' is technically an attempt to commit fraud. No matter how you try to dress it up!! aaaali
  • Score: 1

9:38am Thu 21 Feb 13

Urban Tiger says...

HW1, you are completely missing the point.

If I have a painting worth £16K, and I insure it as such, that's the risk the insurance company are accepting.

If I have a £50K painting, and insure it for £16K, the risk of theft is much higher. £50K paintings get stolen to order, they get stolen for export. They get clocked by workmen visiting my house. So when it gets stolen, the insurance company are not obligated to pay me £16K. They are within their rights to say "you misled us about the level of risk, you paid less premium than you should have done, and if we'd known the truth we wouldn't have taken the risk on because we only insure paintings up to £25K.

Just look at the photo. He's an airline pilot, and educated man, the living room looks v.nice, split level, I can see a phone fax machine and a sub woofer, nice furniture, nice carpets. 3 young kids with all that entailes, their toys, buggies etc. It's completely obvious to anyone that a £50K total sum insured is completely inadequate. It looks like just the kind of place a burglar would target. If they genuinely have only £50K total contents and £16K valuables, they might never have been targeted at all.

It amazes me that anyone would blame the insurance company for this. I pay much more than £280 for my contents insurance, because I take the time to do it properly. Why should my premiums be used to pay claims for people that have underpaid into the overall pot by giving the insurance company the wrong infomation.
HW1, you are completely missing the point. If I have a painting worth £16K, and I insure it as such, that's the risk the insurance company are accepting. If I have a £50K painting, and insure it for £16K, the risk of theft is much higher. £50K paintings get stolen to order, they get stolen for export. They get clocked by workmen visiting my house. So when it gets stolen, the insurance company are not obligated to pay me £16K. They are within their rights to say "you misled us about the level of risk, you paid less premium than you should have done, and if we'd known the truth we wouldn't have taken the risk on because we only insure paintings up to £25K. Just look at the photo. He's an airline pilot, and educated man, the living room looks v.nice, split level, I can see a phone fax machine and a sub woofer, nice furniture, nice carpets. 3 young kids with all that entailes, their toys, buggies etc. It's completely obvious to anyone that a £50K total sum insured is completely inadequate. It looks like just the kind of place a burglar would target. If they genuinely have only £50K total contents and £16K valuables, they might never have been targeted at all. It amazes me that anyone would blame the insurance company for this. I pay much more than £280 for my contents insurance, because I take the time to do it properly. Why should my premiums be used to pay claims for people that have underpaid into the overall pot by giving the insurance company the wrong infomation. Urban Tiger
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Thu 21 Feb 13

The Nomad says...

Also please note that policy was taken out 8 months ago and that the premiums have been refunded
This would suggest there is more to this than has been reported
Also please note that policy was taken out 8 months ago and that the premiums have been refunded This would suggest there is more to this than has been reported The Nomad
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Fri 22 Feb 13

bluefeet says...

This may seem like a harsh decision but 'non disclosure' is a major problem for insurance companies. If I owned a Ferrari, I wouldn't call it a Kia on my policy and then be surprised my insurance company refused a partial payout if it was stolen.
This may seem like a harsh decision but 'non disclosure' is a major problem for insurance companies. If I owned a Ferrari, I wouldn't call it a Kia on my policy and then be surprised my insurance company refused a partial payout if it was stolen. bluefeet
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree